Fascist Corporatism

[The Rabbi]

It is entirely inappropriate for the government to write ideology into its contracts or boycott anybody. Do you honestly want your government to have the power to punish you because of your political, religious, or socioeconomic beliefs?

Really? Stem cell research, abortion funding, same sex marriage and the list goes on and on.

I guess it's all about which fight you want them to have and which you don't but they pass moral judgment when spending our money and they do it all the time.

Do you see the word "contract" in any of the things you've mentioned? No, of course not. You have dragged in irrelevant items into this discussion. The two examples are like chalk and cheese.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As the view of the proper role of government is a regular topic on the board, I wonder if any who read this article in today's WSJ find this campaign by the Obama adminstration appropriate...

...and how it applies to the question of where, on the political spectrum, this government fits.

1."Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ...latest attack, on the CEO of Forest Laboratories,...HHS this month sent a letter to 83-year-old Forest Labs CEO Howard Solomon, announcing it would henceforth refuse to do business with him. What earned Mr. Solomon the blackball? Well, nothing that he did—as admitted even by HHS.

2. ... allegations were among a rash of government suits claiming that marketing to doctors common among drug companies amounted to fraud against Medicare and Medicaid. The charges were odd given their implication that major companies would be dumb enough to try to hoodwink their biggest customer. The charges also had a political flavor as an attempt to blame drug companies, rather than the fee-for-service design of the federal programs, for runaway costs.

3. The feds have rarely invoked this awesome power, given the potential for coercive abuse. But Mrs. Sebelius seems bent on making it more common policy and says she can employ it even against executives who had no knowledge of an employee's misconduct. A year ago Mrs. Sebelius used it to dismiss the CEO of a small drugmaker in St. Louis.

4. Losing the federal government as a customer is potentially crippling to a drug company.
HHS says its action is about holding corporate CEOs accountable, but it looks more like the Administration's latest bid to intimidate the health-care industry into doing its bidding on prices, regulations and political support for ObamaCare. This is the same agency that has threatened insurers with exclusion from new state-run health exchanges if they raise their premiums more than Mrs. Sebelius wants, or if they spread what she deems to be "misinformation" about the President's health bill.

5. The hammer on Forest Labs "reinforces everybody's worst fears—that this Administration won't do business with anybody that doesn't completely agree with its policy initiatives. Not only will it refuse to even have the argument, it will actively destroy these people," says Peter Pitts, a former Food and Drug Administration official who now runs the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. "
Review & Outlook: Kathleen Spitzer - WSJ.com


"Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

I think you need to get a life PC. I say this because I actually have one, and you seem to covet lots of attention based on the ideas and words of others. Many (most) 'artists' (I suspect that is how you see yourself) suffered, lived and experienced the highs and lows of life. I suspect you were born with a silver spoon up your ass, or, were born in poverty and hate those you knew and lived around in your formative years. Much as most callous conservatives, I suspect you're a new form of soiciopath; one not mentally ill, but one so callous they are unable feel the pain of others and only care for yourself and others you find important.

 

[bripat9643]

Private companies depending on our Federal Government for money and/or contracts is viewed as "Socialism", right?

Yes it is.

 

[bripat9643]

So, private comapnies being propped up by our tax dollars is a GOOD thing?

Do you want to prevent the government from buying drugs or paying for them?

Go for it.

I'm all for it.

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly. What happened to the free (gag me) market? If you can't exist without one particular customer - then you better keep them happy or suffer the market consequences.

It can, so make it illegal for government to purchase drugs or pay for them. Problem solved.

A better argument would be that as a government representing the people, that it's unfair for the government to treat any particular company differently than another. Oh wait...that wouldnt work either. Parties should be able to freely contract.

What does this have to do with treating one company different from another?

Oh well, bullshit debunked. Why does the right always try to get people to feel sorry for the rich?

The only thing you "debunked" is the theory that you have a brain.

 

[Antiderivative]

I am a leftie and think that private businesses, especially the banking industry, should be supported by the government.....lol.

 

[bripat9643]

Really? Stem cell research, abortion funding, same sex marriage and the list goes on and on.

I guess it's all about which fight you want them to have and which you don't but they pass moral judgment when spending our money and they do it all the time.

IF the taxpayers don't want to pay for something, then why should they? However, who voted to let bureaucrats punish companies because they advertise their drugs?

 

[Antiderivative]

Really? Stem cell research, abortion funding, same sex marriage and the list goes on and on.

I guess it's all about which fight you want them to have and which you don't but they pass moral judgment when spending our money and they do it all the time.

IF the taxpayers don't want to pay for something, then why should they? However, who voted to let bureaucrats punish companies because they advertise their drugs?

Stem cell research is very beneficial to society. Why do you disagree?

 

[bripat9643]

So any thought about the original statement or are you happy to show your ignorance of this topic too?

Any customer can choose the vendor in a free market system. This is an absolute truth to capitalism. Any variation would not be a free market by definition.

The government isn't "any customer." It's the customer than uses force to obtain its funds from every person in this country. It's not free to use its purchasing power anyhow some arrogant, ideologically motivated, bureaucrat determines.

 

[bripat9643]

Stem cell research is very beneficial to society. Why do you disagree?

That's beside the point. Why should the taxpayers pay for anything they don't want to pay for?

Do you believe in majority rule or not?

 

[Antiderivative]

Stem cell research is very beneficial to society. Why do you disagree?

That's beside the point. Why should the taxpayers pay for anything they don't want to pay for?

Do you believe in majority rule or not?

Stop being an asshole and answer my question. Is stem cell research beneficial towards society?

If you want free market arguments, then attack the pharmaceutical companies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The customer can choose the vendor in a free market system. This is an absolute truth to capitalism. Any variation would not be a free market by definition.

1. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished,

Like we have now? Wow, Rev. Robert A. Sirico was right about this one here but he's wrong about the economic system that will bring it about.


BTW, do you think a speech from some random person, a Reverend no less, would suffice as some kind of proof of something?

You do realize Christ was a socialist AND a bleeding heart liberal to boot...don't you?

Not that this really belongs in this thread, but the only people that think Jesus was a socialist are socialists.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is entirely inappropriate for the government to write ideology into its contracts or boycott anybody. Do you honestly want your government to have the power to punish you because of your political, religious, or socioeconomic beliefs?

Really? Stem cell research, abortion funding, same sex marriage and the list goes on and on.

I guess it's all about which fight you want them to have and which you don't but they pass moral judgment when spending our money and they do it all the time.

I don't want the federal government to have a dog in any fight such as stem cell research, abortion funding, same sex marriage or on and on. Unless unalienable or constitutional rights are involved, all such issues should be non issues so far as the federal government is concerned. It should neither be funding such things nor denying state or local governments the ability to fund or not fund such things as the people decide.

We are supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people which means we are supposed to have a federal government that secures our rights and then leaves us alone to form whatever society we wish to have; to govern ourselves

When you have a government with ability to decide who will and won't get government contracts based on ideology, you will have a thoroughly corrupt and unethical government.

When you have a government with ability to decide what we will and will not have in the way of rights, you have totalitarianism.

And when you have a government that presumes to dictate to an individual business what it will have to do to kiss up to the government in order to operate, you have facism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Every time I hear that engineered statement "Christ was a socialist and a liberal" line I just shake my head and wonder whether we will survive the modern education system that produces so many numbnuts who don't have a clue what socialism is among other things.

Every time I hear someone speak about Christ without any knowledge of him or the tenants of Christianity I have to shake my head and wonder if it will always be possible to fool some of the people all of the time.

I guess that's what keep Fox Noise at the top of the ratings.

Why don't you start a thread demonstrating your vast knowledge of him and the tenets of Christianity so everyone can show you how little you actually know about the subject. Pretending you know what you are talking about isn't very convincing. I have no idea what you think you know and I know you are completely ignorant about Jesus.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Two problems:

1. Fascism was a pro-big business monster. Hitler's power actually derived from empowering big corporations via tax payer funding (trivia: what is the origin of the Mercedes-Benz logo). Likening what happened here to Facism is a non-starter from the word go.

2. The government is actually a consumer in the Free Market same as you and me. As long as what happened doesnt violate the law, there's no foul here.

For the record: I'm not crazy about this particular tactic. However if you read up on this case you'd find that there was a widespread conspiracy to market an unsafe drug to children with the rationale that the potential legal fees would be offset by the billions in profit. The conspiracy was so widespread in the marketing department that if the CEO and founder didn't know about it then he's too incompetent to do business with. That kind of reasoning from a corporation deriving it's profit from healthcare kinda demands a special response. To be clear, they decided it would be profitable to break the law and endanger the lives of children, and after paying the fines and pleading no contest to litigation, they were right! They made money off this. It's hard to feel sorry for them.

And I'd add: for a group of folks cheering when Acorn lost it's funding due to some bad apples, it must hurt like a (insert fun word here) when the same standard is used to shut down a corporation with as much, if not more, malicious corruption involved. Ditto the cheering as Planned Parenthood got defunded.

 

[Foxfyre]

Two problems:

1. Fascism was a pro-big business monster. Hitler's power actually derived from empowering big corporations via tax payer funding (trivia: what is the origin of the Mercedes-Benz logo). Likening what happened here to Facism is a non-starter from the word go.

2. The government is actually a consumer in the Free Market same as you and me. As long as what happened doesnt violate the law, there's no foul here.

For the record: I'm not crazy about this particular tactic. However if you read up on this case you'd find that there was a widespread conspiracy to market an unsafe drug to children with the rationale that the potential legal fees would be offset by the billions in profit. The conspiracy was so widespread in the marketing department that if the CEO and founder didn't know about it then he's too incompetent to do business with. That kind of reasoning from a corporation deriving it's profit from healthcare kinda demands a special response. To be clear, they decided it would be profitable to break the law and endanger the lives of children, and after paying the fines and pleading no contest to litigation, they were right! They made money off this. It's hard to feel sorry for them.

And I'd add: for a group of folks cheering when Acorn lost it's funding due to some bad apples, it must hurt like a (insert fun word here) when the same standard is used to shut down a corporation with as much, if not more, malicious corruption involved. Ditto the cheering as Planned Parenthood got defunded.

You have a very different view of Nazi or Russian totalitarianism than what I learned from history. There is little evidence that big business lifted Hitler or Lenin to power. In Germany however, big business did embrace some of Hitler's social vision as an anecdote to what they saw as a radical welfare state. Small business didn't object to Hitler cracking down on Jewish enterprises as that was less competition for the rest of the German population dealing with the same depression plaguing the USA. But in the end, Hitler controlled every aspect of the German economy.

German businesses might have had the allusion of independence and self direction, but those that deviated from the government policy would find themselves nationalized or forced to close their doors.

"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."--Time Magazine, February 2, 1939

 

[Foxfyre]

Now addressing the better part of Traveler's post:

For the record: I'm not crazy about this particular tactic. However if you read up on this case you'd find that there was a widespread conspiracy to market an unsafe drug to children with the rationale that the potential legal fees would be offset by the billions in profit. The conspiracy was so widespread in the marketing department that if the CEO and founder didn't know about it then he's too incompetent to do business with. That kind of reasoning from a corporation deriving it's profit from healthcare kinda demands a special response. To be clear, they decided it would be profitable to break the law and endanger the lives of children, and after paying the fines and pleading no contest to litigation, they were right! They made money off this. It's hard to feel sorry for them.

"Widespread conspiracy?" I remain unconvinced but invite you to persuade me. Guilty of inappropriate claims for drugs they were marketing and/or dishonest marketing? That I can accept was most likely the case, and yes they deserved a fine stiff enough to hurt badly for that.

But to punish the CEO or other leadership who were unindicted and unnamed in legal action and otherwise allow the business to continue? That I have a HUGE problem with. To me it smacks of tactics by less savory governments to 'encourage' business to install people to their liking or close down. And THAT is the problem I have with it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Two problems:

1. Fascism was a pro-big business monster. Hitler's power actually derived from empowering big corporations via tax payer funding (trivia: what is the origin of the Mercedes-Benz logo). Likening what happened here to Facism is a non-starter from the word go.

2. The government is actually a consumer in the Free Market same as you and me. As long as what happened doesnt violate the law, there's no foul here.

For the record: I'm not crazy about this particular tactic. However if you read up on this case you'd find that there was a widespread conspiracy to market an unsafe drug to children with the rationale that the potential legal fees would be offset by the billions in profit. The conspiracy was so widespread in the marketing department that if the CEO and founder didn't know about it then he's too incompetent to do business with. That kind of reasoning from a corporation deriving it's profit from healthcare kinda demands a special response. To be clear, they decided it would be profitable to break the law and endanger the lives of children, and after paying the fines and pleading no contest to litigation, they were right! They made money off this. It's hard to feel sorry for them.

And I'd add: for a group of folks cheering when Acorn lost it's funding due to some bad apples, it must hurt like a (insert fun word here) when the same standard is used to shut down a corporation with as much, if not more, malicious corruption involved. Ditto the cheering as Planned Parenthood got defunded.

The governemtn is not a consumer like you and me. If I dont like a CEO I'll buy elsewhere. Because I am using my money. The government is not using their money, it is using my money. And when it makes decisions based on politics rather than on getting the best value for the money they have violated their fiduciary duty to the taxpayer.
Your description of Forrest and the case is nonsense. There was no wrongdoing found, as HHS discovered.
Comparing this case to Acorn is bullshit. Forest provides a needed good the government would buy from someone. ACORN is merely a political shill.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As the view of the proper role of government is a regular topic on the board, I wonder if any who read this article in today's WSJ find this campaign by the Obama adminstration appropriate...

...and how it applies to the question of where, on the political spectrum, this government fits.

1."Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ...latest attack, on the CEO of Forest Laboratories,...HHS this month sent a letter to 83-year-old Forest Labs CEO Howard Solomon, announcing it would henceforth refuse to do business with him. What earned Mr. Solomon the blackball? Well, nothing that he did—as admitted even by HHS.

2. ... allegations were among a rash of government suits claiming that marketing to doctors common among drug companies amounted to fraud against Medicare and Medicaid. The charges were odd given their implication that major companies would be dumb enough to try to hoodwink their biggest customer. The charges also had a political flavor as an attempt to blame drug companies, rather than the fee-for-service design of the federal programs, for runaway costs.

3. The feds have rarely invoked this awesome power, given the potential for coercive abuse. But Mrs. Sebelius seems bent on making it more common policy and says she can employ it even against executives who had no knowledge of an employee's misconduct. A year ago Mrs. Sebelius used it to dismiss the CEO of a small drugmaker in St. Louis.

4. Losing the federal government as a customer is potentially crippling to a drug company.
HHS says its action is about holding corporate CEOs accountable, but it looks more like the Administration's latest bid to intimidate the health-care industry into doing its bidding on prices, regulations and political support for ObamaCare. This is the same agency that has threatened insurers with exclusion from new state-run health exchanges if they raise their premiums more than Mrs. Sebelius wants, or if they spread what she deems to be "misinformation" about the President's health bill.

5. The hammer on Forest Labs "reinforces everybody's worst fears—that this Administration won't do business with anybody that doesn't completely agree with its policy initiatives. Not only will it refuse to even have the argument, it will actively destroy these people," says Peter Pitts, a former Food and Drug Administration official who now runs the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. "
Review & Outlook: Kathleen Spitzer - WSJ.com


"Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

I think you need to get a life PC. I say this because I actually have one, and you seem to covet lots of attention based on the ideas and words of others. Many (most) 'artists' (I suspect that is how you see yourself) suffered, lived and experienced the highs and lows of life. I suspect you were born with a silver spoon up your ass, or, were born in poverty and hate those you knew and lived around in your formative years. Much as most callous conservatives, I suspect you're a new form of soiciopath; one not mentally ill, but one so callous they are unable feel the pain of others and only care for yourself and others you find important.

Your post apprears to have been written by the hamsters in the Kia commercial..."you can go with this, or you can go with that...."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOHwjjhFTac]YouTube - 2010 Kia Soul Hamster Commercial | Black Sheep Kia Hamsters Video[/ame]


The one with the hoodie could be your new avatar!


But, what is sad, is that I see the ugly head of jealously in your post!



Doo-da-dippity!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Here are some links on this case. It is far far older than most folks here realize:

Yet, Forest waged an aggressive campaign from 1998 through at least 2005 to promote the use of Celexa and Lexapro in children and teenagers, although neither drug was approved for pediatric patients, according to regulators.

With the aid of about 1,500 sales representatives, Celexa sales skyrocketed from $92 million in 1999 to $1.6 billion in 2002 — making it a blockbuster drug. But the firm was under pressure to sell as much Celexa as possible because the U.S patent on the drug would expire in 2004.

Seeking greater market share, Forest and Lundbeck had undertaken two pediatric studies. Forest's 2001 study by a Texas child psychiatrist was positive, indicating that Celexa was more effective than a placebo in treating depressed children. But the FDA concluded that the Lundbeck study, which was concluded in mid-2001, was "clearly negative" and showed no basis for using Celexa to treat depression in children and adolescents.

In the Lundbeck study, 14 children taking Celexa attempted suicide or had suicidal thoughts compared with only 5 patients taking placebo.

A small circle of Forest's top executives, including Olanoff, were aware of the negative study, regulators said, but failed for the next three years to tell company sales agents about the findings.

Instead, senior executives misrepresented the safety and effectiveness of Celexa to the firm's executive advisory board of leading psychiatrists, its professional affairs unit that is responsible for providing "balanced" information to physicians, and pediatric specialists whom the company hired to give promotional speeches on Celexa and Lexapro.

As a result, regulators said, pediatricians nationwide were misled into thinking that Celexa had been found safe for children.

Olanoff, who is now Forest's president and chief operating officer, did not return repeated phone calls.

From: Forest's push for profits led to drugmaker's woes

Forest Pharmaceuticals Sentenced to Pay $164 Million for Criminal Violations
WASHINGTON -- Drug manufacturer Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc. was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner to pay a criminal fine of $150 million and forfeit assets of $14 million following the company’s guilty plea in November 2010 to one felony count of obstructing justice, one misdemeanor count of distributing an unapproved new drug in interstate commerce and one misdemeanor count of distributing a misbranded drug in interstate commerce, the Justice Department announced. The company, a subsidiary of New York City-based Forest Laboratories Inc., pleaded guilty to charges related to obstruction of an FDA regulatory inspection, to the distribution of Levothroid, which at the time was an unapproved new drug, and to the illegal promotion of the anti-depressant drug Celexa for use in treating children and adolescents.

Today’s sentencing of Forest was the final component of a global resolution totaling more than $313 million to resolve criminal and civil allegations against Forest and its parent company in connection with the distribution and marketing of certain drugs. In September 2010, Forest Laboratories and Forest Pharmaceuticals entered a civil settlement to resolve False Claims Act charges involving three of its drugs: Levothroid, Celexa and Lexapro. As part of the civil settlement, Forest agreed to pay more $149 million, including more than $88 million to the federal government and more than $60 million to the states.

From: Forest Pharmaceuticals Sentenced to Pay $164 Million for Criminal Violations

For some perspective on how profitable the drugs in question were:

Fourth-quarter drug sales fell to $618.3 million from $725.1 million last year. Celexa sales decreased to $6.2 million for the quarter, down from $245.7 million in the prior-year period. The steep decline was offset partially by the company's other antidepressant, Lexapro, which generated sales of $399.4 million, up 14 percent from $351.8 million in the year-ago quarter.

From:FirstWord Mobile

For the record: I'm not crazy about the government's decision here, but the situation is just above and beyond the pale. And the government does legally have the power to refuse to do business with a CEO, it's just a highly unusual use of that power.